<Adrian_P> introducing Atom
and Expr instead of Uniterm means also making RIF more
verbose

<Harold> as Sandro discusses
about 5 years ago in a web page.

<GaryHallmark> I would prefer
spending effort on readability on the presentation syntax

harold: we could allow both
alternatives, eg, arg

<josb> Gary, I agree that we
should make the presentation syntax readable, but we need to
keep in mind that also people will be working with the XML
syntax.

<Adrian_P> from F2F9:
RESOLVED: We keep named arguments, explaining in BLD that: A
RIF consumer that does not support named arguments can
implement them, with relative ease, by treating them as
positional arguments (of a different predicate, formed in a
stable but implementation-dependent way) in the lexical order
of the argument names. (Closing ISSUE-44).

csma: normative syntaxt should be
fully stripped, but falback doesn't be

gary: one shouldn't read the
XML

<Hassan> +1 with Gary

<AxelPolleres> +1 to Gary,
readable pres syntax pleeease

gary: prefers fully stripped
syntax

<Harold> The fully striped
<Atom><op>p</op><arg>abc</arg><arg>efg</arg></Atom>
could be optionally stripe-skipped to <Atom>p abc
efg</Atom>.